OXFORDUNIVER.SI TY PR ESS

Great Clarend on Street . Oxford OX2 6DP

Oxford Un ivers ity Press is a depa rtment of the University of Oxford.11 furthers the Universi ty 's ob jective of excellence in research, scho larship.and ed ucation by publish ing worldwide in

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Der es Salaem Hong Kon g KarachiKuala l umpur Madrid Melbo urne Mexico City NairobiNew Delh i Shan ghai Taipe i Toronto

With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic Fran ce GreeceGuatema la Hungary Italy Japan Poland Port ugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Tha iland Turkey Ukr aine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade ma rk of Ox ford University Pressin the UK and in certa in other co unt ries

Published in the Unit ed Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York

© O xfo rd Un iversity Press 2006

The moral rights of the author have been assertedDatabase righ t O xford University Press (maker)

First published 2006

All r ights reser ved . No pa rt of thi s publ ication may be rep roduced.stored in a retrieval system. or t ransmitted. in ;Iny form o r by any mean s.without the prio r permission in writing of O xford University Press.or as expressly permitted by law. or under terms agreed with th e app rop riaterep rog raphics rights organization . Enq uiries co ncerni ng reprodu ctio nouts ide the scope of the abo ve should be sent to the Rights Department,O xford Univers ity Press. at the address above

You must not circulate th is boo k in any other binding or coverand you mu st imp ose the same cond ition on any ucqu irer

British Libra ry Ca taloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Librar y of Congress Cata loging in Publi cation Data

Data available

Typeset by Newgen Imaging System s (P j Ltd.• Chennai. IndiaPrinted in G reat Brita inon acid -free pa per byBiddies ltd.•King's Lyn n

ISBN ll- 19-<l53031-S (Hbk.)

ISBN 0-1 9-853032-3 (Pbk.)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 \

97~19-85303 1-2 (Hbk.)

978-4-19- 853032-9 (Pbk.)

CHAPTER 9

AESTHETIC RESPONSE

MARGARET S. BARRETT

Introduction

'Aesthetic response' is one of a constellation of related terms and con cept s (e.g., aestheticexperience. aesthetic judgement. aesthetic choice, affective response, musical appreciation,musical preference . mu sical taste) that have been employed in mu sic education research,theory.and pr actice when attempting to describe and/or define the nature o f music knowing,experience, and judgement . As such the concept of aesthetic respo nse is deeply problem­atic, an 'essentially contested concept' (Gallie, 1964; Barre tt, 2002). To separate the term s,the 'aesthetic' stems from a philosophical tradition established in th e eight eenth century,which drew on the legacy of the Ancient Greeks in an attempt to determine the nature .meaning and value of the arts and sensory experience to human existence. Th e latt er ter m'response' implies the end-po int of some form of interaction; one that could be the resultof precipitat e stimulatio n, behaviourist tr aining, or, con sidered reflection. Wh ile originallylocated in th e realm of phil osophy, when wedded to 'response', and placed in the context ofmusic education, 'aesthetic response' has also been the object of study with in psychologyand sociology.

This chapter examines the ways in which 'aesthetic response' has been described andused within the philosophy, psychol ogy, and SOCiology of music education, and examinesrelevant research that has sought to identify the nature and developmenta l tr ajectory inchildren's musical engagement within and across these fields. In so doing, it explores aview of aesth etic response as 'perfo rrna tive' and constitutive of identi ty, and considers theimplications of this view for theories of children's musical development.

The topic of 'aesthetics; whether couched in philosophical, psychological, or sociologicalterms has generated an exten sive body of literature. It is beyond the scope of this chapterto deal with the diverse and comp lex theories that have arisen with in the literature, or toadd further to the numerous attempts to arrive at a defini tive accou nt of aesth etic response.Rath er, the chapter is intended to alert the reader to the depth and complexity o f theoreticalwork in relation to thi s concept, and to provoke further discussion. Necessarily, manyperspectives are omitted, som e dealt with in a cursory manner when deserving of a morethorough examination, while others are examined in more depth as a particular argum ent

174 THE C H I LO A S MUSI CIAN

is pu rsued. For th is reason, readers are encouraged to move beyond my omissions and'prejudices" and to explore the field in greater depth'.

Philosophical views of aesthetic response

Philosoph icalviews of aesthetic response arise from philosophic al endeavour that has aimedto provide'sustained, systematicand critical examination of belief' (Elliott, 2002, p. 85), andmake 'the implicit explicit, with the ultimate aim of enr iching both understanding and per­ception' (Bowman, 1998, p. 5). While the study of the natu re of music, its effects, and humanresponse, has been the topic of philosophical debat e since the writings of Plato, Socrates,and Aristotle, the formalization of this debate und er the term <aesthetic', stems from theeighteenth century and the work of Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (I7353). Baum gartencreated the term 'aesthetica' to describe a type of understanding that occurs through sens­ory experience of the world , that is, through perception rather than concept ion. He therebycreated a complementary form of knowing and knowledge, a 'second-order' form of cog­nition . This idea of the aesthetic was taken up by Kant in his work The critiqu e ofj udgment(1952/ 1790), and expanded upo n in distinctive ways. For Kan t, aesthetic experience con­sisted of the apprehension of beauty in an object. an apprehension that rests in our capacityto perceive formal qualities and make direct, personal judgements that are <disinterested:that is, unmediated by consideration of external issues such as moral or ethical concerns.Unfortunately,Kant considered m usic's 'formal pro perties' as being too located in the realmof the sensuous as opposed to the contemplative, thu s relegating music to a lowly form ofaesthetic experience within the spectrum of the arts.

Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centu ries a view of the aesthe tic arose thatsought to identify engagement with the arts as rat ional , cognit ive, and separate from thepowerful and sedu ctive effects of the emotions and the sensuou s. Philosophers strove toident ify'universal' and 'etern al' qualities that could be drawn on when making judgementsabout the nature and quality of arts works and experiences, and a unique kind ofattentionor <aesthetic att itude' that was employed in such experiences". Th is focus on universaland eternal qualities necessitated the discarding of all reference to context or qualitiesexternal to the work itself: the arts work became 'autono mous', an object or event to bejudged solely through analysis of its ' internal' features, its <form'. This is perh aps mostpowerfully illustrated in Eduard Hanslick's 'aesthetics of music' (1986) first published in1854, where the capacity to appreciate the formal properties of musical works over sensuo usor emo tive proper ties, was emphasized. Hanslick's an tipathy to the consideration of'context'

1 I use the te rm 'prejudice' in Gad amer's non-pejorative sense that 'all under standing necessarily involves someprejudice' ( 1982. p. 239).

2 Analysis of pr imary sources and interpretations of these (e.g., Bowm an. 1998) will provide a greater ins ightand under sta ndi ng of the complexities of these debates in relation 10 mu sic.

3 Meditationes Philosophicae de Nonnulius ad Paema Pertineruitous... 'Aesthetic attit ude' o r disinterest theorie s may be traced from Kant. th roug h the work of Schope nhauer

(1818/1966 ). to Bu tlougb' s ( 1912) iden tification of 'psychkal distance:

A EST H ET IC RESPO NSE 175

or extra-musical features in making musical judgements is evidenced in his discussion ofprogramm e music, specifically Beethoven's overtu re to Egmont:

The content of Beethoven's overture is not the character Egmon t, nor his actions,experiences, att itudes, but these are the content of the portrait 'Egmont', of the dramaEgmant. The contents of the overture are sequences of tones which the composer has createdentirely spontaneously, according to logical musical pr inciples. For aestheticalcontemplation, they are wholly auto nomous and independent of the mental image ofEgmont, with which on ly the poetical imagination of the composer has brought them intoconnection, no matter whether, in some inexplicable way, the image was suitable forinitiating the invention of that sequence of tones or whether he invented that sequence ofton es and then found the image of Egmont consistent with it.

Hanslick (1986, pp. 74- 75)

For Hanslick, musical conten t consisted of the 'sequences of ton es' rather than any extra­musical material, where music ' . . . speaks not merely by means of tones) it speaks onlytones' (1986, p. 78). In Han slick's theory, musical content and form were 'fused in anobscure, inseparable unity' (1986, p. 80) that distinguished music from all other literaryand visual arts . Feelings were a secondary effect in music as ' . . . the mo re powerfully aneffect from a work of ar t overwhelms us physically (and hence is pathological), the morenegligible is its aesthetical component' (1986, p. 57). Hanslick (1986) instead promoted a'deliberate pure contemplation' of mu sic, tha t yielded an 'unemotionalyet heartfelt pleasure',a 'mental satisfaction which the listen er finds in cont inuously following and anticipatingthe composer's designs, here to be confirmed in his expectations, there to be agreeably leadastray' (p. 64).

This emphasis on the cognition of autonomous form as the deter min ing factor in makingmeaning and judgements in music continues in various guises through the accounts ofmusical mean ing offered by theorists such as Suzanne Langer (1942/1979) and Leonard B.Meyer (1956). Langer's theory of music does not exclude emotion and the sensuous, as sheviews music as a type ofanalogue of emotional experience, where the movemen t of musicaltension mirro rs that of emotion al experience. However, in her view we do not experience theemotions asemotions. rather, we experience music as a 'presentational symbol' of emotion s:as Bowman (2004) describes th is approach,' .. . music shares common struct ural fonn withthe realm of feeling (music sounds like feelings feel)' (p. 31 ).

Meyer also admits emotion into the ways in which we understand and make meaningin music. In his early work, Meyer (1956) provides an (somewhat behavioural) explana­tion of mu sical meaning where music and emot ion (or affect) are descr ibed in terms ofst imulus and response. with mu sical mean ing and 'affect' arising from ou r close atten­tion to th e unfolding of mu sical patterns th at bot h confirm and contradict our ' listener'expectations. For example, musical 'affect' may be achieved through th e development ofrepetitive musical fo rms that lead the listener to expect certain musical resolutions thatare subsequently interrupted or delayed, before being resolved in conven tional or novelways. Meyer's (2001) continued emphasis on 'expectancy' and arousal and resolution asthe 'essential basis for aesthetic-emotional experience' (p. 353) is evident in later work.\Vhile emotion and 'affect' are admitted, they are only achieved through cognitive attention

176 THE CH ILD AS MUSICIAN

to pattern and structure within the musical work in a manner reminiscent of Hansdescripti on of the 'unemotional yet heartfelt pleasure' gained from the 'deliberate puretemplation of music'. For Meyer (2001), uncertainty is of aesthetic importance as 'whetensions of instabilit y are resolved to the cognitive security of stable patterning, functrelationships have at once articulated and unified musical structure' (p. 359).

Langer's and Meyer's theories are in varying degrees sensitive to stylistic and culdifferences, thereby beginning the move away from an emphasis on universal quain the ways in which we understand, make meaning, and respond to mu sic. Hovthe terms by which Meyer's 'expectations' are unfolded within styles rests in a Weart music definition of 'style' that identifies 'intra-stylistic' features through the 'unitlens' of Western art music. Th is circular process inevitably judges all music from a con:(Western art music) framework regardless of the acknowledgement of style-specific feawithin that framework, and tends to draw us back to a cognitive focus on autonomous Ialbeit one that admits of a form of emotiona l engagemen t (for further discussion cdevelopm ent of emotional response see Chapter 10).

Philosophical views: implications for child ren's musical development

The legacy of these (modernist) accounts of aesthetics and aesthetic response has be,exclusive focus on audience-listening as the key mode by which aesthetic response :cited/de monstrated,where the listener 's increasing ability to identify the interplay of fcfeatures is taken as an indicator of aesthetic und erstanding and development. Adheto these accounts of the aesthetic suggests that the development of aesthetic resporchildren rests in a growing capacity to identi fy and 'engage' in audience-listening J

with the formal features of musical works in particular musical styles. Specifically, a ccapacity to identify and respond to musical tension achieved through the manipulatimusical elements (Langer),or, to identify the ways in which musical patterns are establideveloped, and resolved (Meyer) , is indicative of aesthetic unders tanding and respon~

Such an approach does not acknowledge that music has many roles and functions ilives beyond that of being an 'object' of 'pure contemplation', roles that I shall expkgreater depth later in this chapter. Furthermore, postm odernist perspectives on aestlhave challenged the verities that were the foundati on of modernist aesthetic theory,of autonomous form, universal and eternal qualities, and disinterestedness, suggestinour attention in and to music encompasses more than a disinterested focus on fpropert ies. Acknowledgement of the particul ar and local, of plurality, the 'other; a'bias' or 'prejudice' in a non-pejorative sense move the aesthetic project away from aon definitive statements. As Bowman (1998) remin ds us:

The comforting belief that all music is evaluable by the same, strictly 'aesthetic' criteria haslost its persuasiveness, as has the noble vision of music as an inherently and inevitably'humanizing' affair. The essentially mu sical core which 'masterworks' were once thought tcrepresent abunda ntly is increasingly characterized as ideological and political subterfuge.What the term 'music' designates has become increasingly problematic, and its potentialvalues have become radically mul tiple. (p. 394)

AESTHETIC RESPO NSE 177

The admission of post rnoderni st theory to the discussion of aesthetics has generated con­siderable debate. and philosophical accounts of aesthetic response in music are contestedheavily. However, with in the discipline of the psychology of music, the study of aestheticresponse has been subject to less debate . In the following sectio n 1shall explore the ways inwhich aesthetic response has been describedand interrogated from this perspective.

Psychological views of aesthetic respollse

Psychological views of aesthetic response have arisen largely from the study of music per­ception and cognition in the field of psycho-acou stics, specifically, within the subfieldof empirical or experimental aesthetics. Empirical aesthet ics (Fechner, 1876/1978) wasdeveloped as a complementary area of study to that of philosophical aesthet ics, and wasintended to establish a means to scientific study of those concepts raised in philo sophicalaesthetics. This work was taken up by Berlyne (1970, 1971, 1974) who established the field ofexperimentalaesthetics in an attempt to develop an 'objective'approach to the study of aes­thetic appreciation in music thatwas separate from the 'speculative'nature of philosophicalaesthetics.

Despite this distinction in the intentions of empirical and experimental aesthetics, bothapproaches have a philosophical foundation in modernist accounts of the aesthetic. Thisis perhaps a consequence of early parallel development wherein empiri cal and exper i­mental aesthetics developed from modernist accounts of philosophical aesthetics, and havenot been subject to recent postmodernist developments in the field. Within empirical andexperimental aesthetics, the research enterprise works from 'universal' features of music(e.g., the percep tion of acoustic stim uli and/or pattern and form ) to identify characteristicpatterns of development in the aesthetic/affective perception and cognition of music. Con­sequently,psychological accounts of aesthetic response are subject to the criticisms levelledat modernist philosophical accounts of the aesthetic in their focus on autonomous form,universal and eternal qualities, and 'disinterested' response.

Studies of aesthetic response in the psychology of music have included the ana lysis oflistener response to hearings of non-musical acoustic stimuli (Berlyne, 1971), of elementsof musical system s, such as tuning (Lynch & Eilers, 1991), and of partial and/or completeperformances of musical wor ks (Madsen etaL, 1993).Thesestud ies have included the invest­igation of responses to auditory/musical experiences that require little prior knowledge orexperience of music, and/or extensive knowledge and experience (Madsen & Geringer,1990; Madsen et al., 1993). The form er of these app roaches ar ises in part from nativistviews of aesthetic thinking and response that argue that innate cognitive structures gov­ern thinking, learning, and development, and seek to identify th e nature of these, andthe constraints of their operation. In contrast to the nativist position, ccntextualist viewsargue that culture and context play an instrumental role in thinking, learning, and devel­opment, and insist that the constructive influences of these factors be admitted to anystudy of aesthetic thinking and response. Research techniques employed in these studieshave elicited both non-verbal and verbal response to listening experience. In the former,devices such as the 'Continuous Response Digital Interface' (CRD!) have been used as a

178 T HE CH I LD AS MUS ICIAN

means to accessing music response unrnediated by language and the specialized vocabularyrequired for the discussion of music experience (Madsen & Geringer, 1990; Madsen et «L,1993). The CRDI involves manipu lat ion of a d ial during listening experience, a processthat produces a 'map' of em otio nal response to music experience tha t indicates the peaksand troughs of such response (in part an application of Langer's suggestion that music isa 'presentational symb ol' of emotions). The view of 'aesthet ic response' that emerges fromthis approach is on e tha t highlight s mu sic's role in arousing feelings an d emo tio ns, ra therthan one that focuses on th e identifi cation of eleme nts of mu sical structure and form.Essentially, the CRD1 maps 'reflection-in-action', providing a means to moni tor arousalstates.

Non-verbal approaches have been employed also in developmental psycho logy researchwith infants and yo ung children as a means to circumventing infants' actual and youngchildren's perceived inability to verbalize a response to mu sical experience. Researchersexamining infants' responses to music have adapted 'head-tu rn preference procedures'(HTPP) employed in developme ntal linguistics to test infants' ab ilities to d iscr imin­ate between varying aural stimuli (Karmiloff & Karmiloff-Smith , 2001). This procedu rehas been used to identify infants' mu sical preferences for con sona nce over disso nance(Zentner & Kagan, 1996; Trainor et aI., 2002); musically phrased segme ntation of melodiesover non-musically ph rased segmentation (Krumhansl & Iuscyk. 1990); and tone repet i­tion in melody (Schellenberg & Trehub, 1999). HTPP strategies have also bee n employedto iden tify in fants' ability to detect changes in mel odic contour (Trehub et al., 1997), and insemi-tonal variations in interval size (Schellenberg & Trehub , 1996). These HT PP studiesindicate tha t infants have established preferences and abilities from an early age, suggestingthat mu sic preferences and responses arise from innate stru ctures. An alternat ive inte rpret ­at ion of these find ings takes into accou nt the considerable exposure to music that manyinfants experi ence ill utero an d duri ng the first months of life, mod ifying a purely nativ istaccou nt of this aspect of musical develop men t to one that ad mit s of the formative natureof culture and environ ment.

In a bid to address criticisms concerning the ecological valid ity of some me thodo­logical approaches to the psychological study of aesthet ics (e.g., asking participants torespon d to isolated tones or artificial stimuli that have littl e or no resemblance to musicevents ) researchers working with child parti cipan ts have sough t increasingly to use completemusical works of varyi ng length and complexity as a means to eliciting and studying aes­thetic response. Strategies em ployed in these studies have included: eliciting verbal respon seduring the aural event using 'think-aloud' protocols (Richa rdson, 1995); eliciting verbalresponse after the aural event using in terview, verbal checklist.or wri tten reflective responses(Hevner, 1936; Farn sworth , 1954; Flowers, 1984, 1988; Nelson, 1985; Preston, 1994; Rodrig­uez & Webster, 1997; Rodriguez, 1998; Swanwick & Franca , 1999; Barrett, 200012001);eliciting non-verbal taesthetic response' du ring the aur al event using dev ices such as theCRDl (Byrnes, 1997); eliciting non-verbal respo nse after th e aural event using movementanalogues (Gromko & Poorm an, 1998; Fung & Gro mko, 2001), adult -genera ted listeningmaps (Gromko & Russell, 2002), and graphic tasks (Hair, 1993/1994). In reviewing this bodyof researc h, qu estions may be raised in regard to the timing of the elicitation of the response(du ring or after th e event ): specifically, the distinctio n between responding in listening as

AE ST HETIC RESP O NSE 179

a 'reflection-in-action' strategy as opposed to responding after listening as areflection-on­action' stra tegy. \Vhile some would dispute whethe r listening is "action ', or indeed, capableof bearing the distinct ion between reflection "in' rather tha n "on ' action, what is accessed' in' ra ther than 'after' the event may be qualitatively different in ways that are importantto understanding aesthetic thinking and response. Similarly, distinctio n needs to be madebetween arousal, affect, and enduring response. Further research is needed to explore thesequestions in relation to aesthetic response.

The employment of verbal strategies to elicit child ren's aesthetic response has not beenwithout cri ticism as researchers have suggested that young children's ability to verbalizetheir ideas and responses is significantly less than their perceptual abiliti es (Hair, 1981,1987). Nevertheless a number of studies have pro posed developmental trends in children'sverbal responses to listen ing experience. Th ese include the observation that:

1. young children are mo re concerned with describing isolated pro perties of sound tha nwith the affective aspects of music (Rodriguez & Webster, 1997);

2. musically unt rained children's and adul ts' verbal responses are primarily concernedwith 'extra-musical' references with some references to timbre, temp o, and dynamics(Flowers, 1990); and

3. children move prog ressively through stages dominated respectively by

• a focus on the materials of music (isolated properties)

• a focus on expressive propert ies, and

• a focus on issues of form and structure (Swanwick & Franca. 1999).

The hierarchic separation of children's perception of isolated properties, expressive prop­erties, and issues of form and structure th at is outlined in these find ings reflects theconcerns of modernis t aesth etics with the separation of affective issues from those ofstructure and form, a Cartesian separation of emotion from cognition. It could bespeculated that these results reflect the underlying aesthetic th eory of such research. inthat a theoret ical separation of affective and structural properties. of form and con­tent. shapes th e ways in which these issues are iden tified in parti cipant responses, andsubsequently interp reted: that is, a dual istic framework inev itably produces duali sticresults.

In other approaches to the study of aesthetic response researchers have sought to examinemodes of music engagement other than audi ence-listening as a means to accessing musicalthinking and aesthetic decision-making, focusing on children's musical discourse as com ­posers (Barrett , 1996, 1998). Findings from thi s research dispute the hier archic separationof expressive propert ies and issues of form and structure in children's musical thin king, afinding that is suppo rted by oth er research (Marsh, 1995). From this research, a view ofthe aesthetic as a situated interp retive 'dialogue' between the child, the mu sic event, and thesocial and cultural contexts in which she experien ces mu sic and music-making is proposed(Barrett , 2002). The aesthet ic 'transaction' is viewed as a form of contextually embeddedaction in which meani ngs and judgements of value are 'dem onstrated' through a range ofmusical processes (Barrett , 2002, 2003a).

180 THE C H ILD AS MUSICIA N

Psychological views: implications for children's musical development

Specificaesthetic theor iesare rarelyoutlined in many of the studies cited above. However, theemphasis on initiating and mappi ng response to formaUstructural featur es in isolation fromcontent and contextual features. suggests that the underlying aesthetic theory is forma listand modern ist, that is. one that focuses on intra-musical featur es. and response to these'aesthetic' qualities. These studies tend to work from musical materials developed withinthe Western classical or 'art' music trad ition. further reinforcing a philosophi cal view ofthe aesthetic as autonomous, un iversal, eternal. creating a sense of internal congruencethat results in broad similarities in the ways in which aesthetic experience and response isdescribed (Lychner, 1998).

In these psychological approaches to the study of aesthetic response the developm ent ofaesthetic response in children appears to rest in a growing capacity to identify and 'engage'with the formal features of musical works. While researchers have moved beyond a solitaryfocus on audience-listening as the prime mode of engagement for aesthetic response, toone that acknowledges ot her forms of engagement, and admitted an expanded notion of'music' to include music beyond that of the Western music canon. there is still consider­able debate on the natu re and developmental tra jectory of aesthetic respon se. Indeed, theadm ission of issues of context and cultu re has served to add further complexity to thestudy of aesthetic respon se. Another element of complexity is evident in the emergenceof interdisciplinary approaches to the study of music, music development, and aestheticrespon se.

While the field ofcognitive neuroscience of mus ic is not directly linked to that of experi­mental aesthetics or the psychological study of aesthetic respon se. the topics of study in thisfield have some overlap with the concern s of experimental aesthetics. For example. the studyof the processing of emotions provoked by music experience relates to the sensuous aspectsof aesthetic experien ce, and the mode of music engagement that is most often associatedwith aesthetic experience in music, that of audience listening. Stud ies that have mappedphysiological response (heart and/or respiration rate, skin conductivity, blood flow) tomusic. suggest that 'music elicits a cascade of subconscious activity' (Trainor & Schmidt.2003, p, 320) . Trainor and Schmidt (2003) propose that 'music may be so intimately con­nected with emotional systems because caregivers use mu sic to communicate emotionallywith their infants before they are able to use language' (p. 310). This implicit linking ofthe cognitive and emotive through identifying communication as a function of early musicengagement is also evident in the work of Dissanayake (200 t) . She argues that aestheticimagination arises from the 'pretend play' of mother-infant interactions, interactions inwhich infants are active agents in their communicative interactions with mothers or care­takers in what are 'essentially aestheticcontexts' (2000, p. 219). Dissanayake (2000) observesthat 'In these encounters. sensitivities to rhythmi c and dynamic change are manip ulated inorder to co-ordinate the mother- infant pair emot ionally and express its accord' (p. 219).This emphasis on interactive social engagement suggests a more holistic notion of aestheticresponse that moves beyond a focus on intra-musical features (such as formal featu res ofmusical works ) to a focus on the uses of music in social settings. in short, to sociologicalviews of aesthetic response.

AESTHETIC RESPONSE 181

Sociological views of aesthetic response

As sociological studies are concer ned with issues such as social organization , action andinteraction between individualsand groups, and social processes involved in the productionof culture and knowledge, sociological approaches to aesthetics have looked beyond intra­musical features to acknowledge the influence and impact of other processes in elicitingand shaping aesthetic response. Writing broadly of sociology, DeNora (200 I) characterizesthis move as one where 'sociologists across a wide range of specialist areas have devotedthemselves to the question of how material-cultural and aesthetic media maybe understoodto provide models and cand idate structures for the production and achievement of emotionand feeling within specific social settings' (p. 164). For music, this has resulted in a concernwith 'how it is consumed and what it "does" in social life' (p. 164), and a focus on the practiceof music in a range of social and cultural settings. rather than on 'au tonomous musicobjects'. These concerns resonate with those of ethnom usicology, where the interests ofmusicologists and anthropologists intersect in the study of musical structu res and materials(musicology), and their cultural function (anthropology) (Gregory, 1997). Discussion ofsome eth nomusicological approaches to the study of children's aesthetic engagement andresponse shall be addressed in this section.

DeNora (2000, 2001) suggests that when music is used to manipulate emot ional, cognit­ive, and feeling states that it functions as a kind of 'aesthetic technology', an instrument ofself and social ordering, of emo tional and identi ty work. This enacted and enactive view ofthe aesthetic, where the focus is on 'use' no t auto nomous object provides a revitalized viewof the aesthetic, one that emphasizes 'aesthetic agency' (DeNora, 2000). In this view, 'Musicis a resource to which agents turn so as to regulate them selves as aesthetic agents, as feel­ing, thinking and active beings in their day-to-day lives' (DeNora, 2003, p. 95). This focushas also been taken up in philosophy by the pragmatist philosopher Richard Shusterman(2000) and is evidenced in his proposal of the discipline of 'sornaesthetics' (I shall explorethis further in the following section). The emergent view of the aesthet ic from these diversefields is one that is concerned with emo tion , specifically, with the 'social distribution ofemotion' (DeNora, 2001, p. 167), 'our need for beaut y and intensified feeling' (Shusterman,2000, p. 7), and our 'use' of aesthetic experiences in the structuring of ou r lives.

\Vithin music, sociological views of aesthetic respon se have tend ed to focus on the issueof musical ' taste' or 'preference', under the broad rub ric of 'musical app reciation' (Russell,1997). The examination of the musical preferences of adolescents has been of part icularinterest to music educ ators and researchers working from a cross-disciplinary perspectivein the social psychology of music (Zilman & Gan, 1997; North et al., 2000; Boal-Palheiros& Hargreaves, 2001). This interest reflects concerns that ado lescents' enormo us interest inand consumption of music in their lives beyond schools does not translate necessarily intoa commensurate interest in engagemen t in school music (see furth er, Ross, 1995; Gammon,1996). Much of the sociological research in aesthet ic response has been concerned withexploring adolescents ' preferences for specific genres of music and the links between suchpreferences and music-dependent behaviours (Frith & McRobbie, 1990; Shepherd & Giles­Davies, 1991; see also, Willis's 1978 study of bikeboys' use of music as a means to shapingtheir behaviou r).

182 THE CHILD AS MUSI CI A N

A number of studies have explored the relationship between gender and musical taste(Frith & McRobbie, 1990; Bryson , 1997) in an attempt to identify gend er-based patterns ofmusical preference. For example, young girls' preference for romantic popular music anddan ce music (McRobbie, 2000) appea rs to differenti ate their tastes from th ose of young boys.However, other research suggests that the differentiation on gender lines lies in the waysin which the respective groupings describe and discuss music rather than in the identifica­tion of specific musical works and styles (Richards, 1998). While much of this research hasfocused again on audience-listening as the main mode of aesthetic engagement. the natureof such listening has expa nded beyond trad itional 'concert-hall' notions of 'deliberate purecontemplation of music' to encompass types of 'performative listening',for exarnple.I isten­ing in and through dan ce pa rticipat ion (McRobbie, 2000), and 'pairing mu sic with a varietyof other materials, practices, and postures' (DeNora, 2003, p. 94). In related work, femini stanalyses of music and music experience interrogate the nature of audience-listening andcriticism and the gendered assumptions that unde rlie modes of music engagement andforms of musi c analysis (McClary, 1991).

In other sociologic al investigations of aesthetic response researchers have investigated themu sical preferences of younger children including th e labels th ey use to describe such pref­erences (Suthers, 1999), their habit s of listening at hom e and at school (Boal-Palheiros &Hargreaves, 2004), and the ways in which children 'use' music in their daily lives (Campbell,1998, 2002). Campbell's (2002) study rests in the intersection between sociology, eth­nomusicolo gy, and anthropology as she argues that children 'use' music for a variety ofpurposes in their various musical cultures (p. 61). She identifies nine distinct functionsof music in children's lives. those of: Emotional expression; Aesthetic enjoyme nt; Enter­tainment;Comm unication; Physical respon se; Enforcement of conformity to social norms:Validation of religious ritual;Continuity and stability of culture; and Integration of society(pp. 61-64). Campbell (2002) does not ord er these various fun ctions in a developmentalprogressio n. rather. she emphasizes the diversity of uses of music in the lives of childreno f all ages. Crucially, the identification of these functions incorporates a variety of mod esof music engagemen t. In other ethnomusicological work, children'ssongs and musical playhave been identified as rich sources of information co ncerning the characteristic musicalstructures of adult culture (Nett l, 1990), and potentially a sou rce for understan ding thedevelopment of aesthetic preferences and practices in these cultures.

An acknowl edged antecedent for Campbell's work lies in Blacking's sem inal study of themusic of the Venda people, and his analysis of children's song in this culture. Blacking's(1973/2000 ) emphasis was primarily ethnorn usicological rath er than anthropological asevidenced in his insistence o n the analysis of music structure as a means to understandingthe nature of music:

Wemaynever be able to understand exactly how another person feels about a piece ofmusic, but we can perhaps understand the structural factors that generate the feelings.Attention to music'sfunction in society is necessary only in so far as it may help us toexplain the structures . . . I am concernedprimarily with what music is. and not what it isused for. (p. 26)

A ESTHETIC RESPO N S E 183

while this emphasis may be viewed as a perpetuation of a mod ernist concern withaccessing mus ical meaning through th e analysis of music's const itutive elements, Black­ing (197312000 ) asserted that mu sical structures were not separa te from socio-cultural andbiological structu res:

Functional analyses of musical structure cannot be detached from stru ctural analysesof itssocial function: the function of tones in relation to each othe r cannot be explainedadequately as pari of a closed system witho ut reference to the structures of thesocio-cultural system of which the musical system is a pari, and the biological system towhich all music makers belong (p. 30).

In relation to the focus of this chapter, aesthetic response, Blacking's description of theembedded nature of the biological, the musical, and the socio-cultural reminds us thatindividual and collective experience of music in social and cultural sett ings is central tothe development of aesthetic response, and is manifest in a range of m usical modes ofengagement.

Sociological views: implications for children's musical development

The sociological focus on the 'uses' of music in individual lives challenges traditionalaccounts of children's musical development in aesthetic response. Specifically, the 'uses'of music as a means to configure identity, relationships, and social and cultural institu­tions, suggests that aesthetic response is 'perforrnative' and plays a key role in child ren'sidentity work. When these issues are taken into consideration, the study of children's aes­thetic response necessitates a move from a singular focus on the musical work and children'sresponse to this, to the study of children's musical act ion and agency, th eir activeengagementin music in all modes of musical engagement (e.g., composing, improvising, listening, mov­ing, performing, singing), and an admission of multiple ways in which aesthetic responsemay be 'performed '.

Aesthetic response and the child as musician

In th e above discussion of philosophical, psychological. and sociological views of the aes­thetic, it is evident that the bulk of research into aesthetic respo nse has eme rged in th e fieldof psychology and its various subdisciplines. In terms of studying musical developmen t, th echild as musician has been viewed largely through the lens of developmental psychology,a lens that has been shaped by formalist views of the aesthetic that arose in modern istaccounts of philosophical aesthetics. As such the developme nt of the child as musician isdescribed as a process whereby an autonomo us individual engages with the phenom enon ofWestern music as it is presented in institutio nal Western music education practices. Theselatter tend to work from an 'atomised' rath er than holistic account of music and musicexperience, where the study of music occurs through the isolated study of its constitutiveelements rather than th rough holistic encounters with music practice. Lucy Green's (2002)analysis of the learning practices of popular mu sicians points the distinction between these

184 T HE C H ILD AS MUSI C IA N

formal and informal music learning practices. In what maybe seen as a self-replicating pro­cess, research has focused on the study of individual response to the constitutive elementsof music, presented variously in isolation, or comp lete musical contexts.

It is only recently tha t the child as musician has been viewed throug h other lenses,for example, that of sociology. Consequently, sociological accounts of children's aestheticresponse are less common. Further, such accounts tend to be shaped around the studyof social and cultura l issues in aesthetic respon se such as gender, or social class, ratherthan developmental issues. Indeed, within the sociological study of childhood, many ofthe assumptions that are inherent in developmental psychological studies of childhood arechallenged. This isevident in the emerging fieldofsocio -cultural developmental psychology(Rogoff, 2003) where accounts of the nature and trajectory of developm ent in a ran ge ofhu man functions are demonstrably different across social and cultu ral settings.

what is common in many accounts of the aesthetic and aesthet ic response in bothdevelopmental psychology and sociology is a failure to acknowledge and interrogate thephilo sophica l beliefs and values that underpin the research enterprise. I have attemptedin the above discussions of psychological and sociological views to identify some of theseunderlying philosophical theories. It is significant that much of the research draws onformali st aesthetic theor ies that have been subject to considerable debate in recent years.Key criticisms of these theories include the adherence to universals, the separation of mindand body in human thought and action, and the elision of social and cultural variation.In what follows I shall explore an alternative account of aesthetic response that draws onrecent aesthetic philosoph y,and discuss the implications of such an account for our viewsof the development of the 'child as mu sician'.

Performing aesthetic identity

In a broad interdisciplinary approach to the study of the origins of 'art' and its meaningand function in human existence Dissanayake (1988/2002, 1992/1999, 2000) draws ondiverse fields, including those of aesthet ics, anthropology, evolutionary theory, biology andsocio-biology,psychology. cognitivescience, and neuroscience to propose a bioevolut ionarytheory of art . Dissanayake (2000) argues that the arts are intrinsic to human existence, thatlove and the arts are 'inherently related: and. that the origins of art lie in human intimacy.Her argument draws on evidence of'psychobio logical mechanism s: or 'rhythm s and modes'that she proposes form the basis of mother-infant interactions and communication. Whilesocio-cultural views of developmental psychology (Rogoff, 2003) may query Dissanayake's'universal' characterization of mother-infant interact ions, suggesting that these provide a'Western ' roma nticized account of such early relationships, the theory provides a useful lensthrough which we may explore an alternative account of aesthetic response.

In earlier work Dissanayake comments that <•• • insofar as we respond aestIJeticallywe areaware (at some level; it may well be inarticulate) of the code-s-of how not on ly that some­th ing is said. This awareness. which is cognitive, makes our fuller response possible. as wediscriminate. relate, recognize, and otherwise follow the code'smanipul ations' [Dissanayake,198812002, p. 165). Here, Dissanayake ( 1988/2002) identifies two kinds of appreciat ion, that

A EST HETI C RESP ONSE 185

of'. . . "ecstatic" respon se to sensual, psychophysiological properties in the artwork, and . . ."aesthetic" respons e to the manipulation s of the code or pattern of expectation s embodiedin it' (p, 164) . For Dissanayake, aesthetic response is a result of education whereas 'ecstatic'response arises from sensation . At one level this separation of the aesthetic from the ecstaticreflects the preoccupation of mod ernist aesthetic theory with separating body from mind,sensuou s experience from cognit ion , a preoccupation that is countered by recent movesto 'embody' the mind (Damasio, 199412000, 2000, 2003; Lakoff & John son, 1999; Bresler,2004), At another level, within Dissanayake's (2000) frame of a 'naturalistic aesthetic', thebody and mind are brought together in a psychobiological explanation of aesthetic valuingand response that points towards the 'embodied mind'.

Dissanayake (2000) argues that the origins of the aesthetic lie in the human need formutuality. She suggests that mutuality is characterized by the features of: belonging to;finding and making meaning; competence th rough handling and making;and, elaboration.Dissanayake's identification of these features draws on Trevarthen's ( 1998) concept of ;,mateintetsubjectivity. He argues that infants are predisposed to elicit, respon d to, and regulate themother's emo tio nal as well as physical support and care, and identifies 'mutual actio n' and'infant agency' as key compon ents of this process. Mutuality and agency are also evident inMalloch's acco unts of 'com m unicative musicality'. He describes 'communicative musicality'as the 'co-operative and co-dependent com municative interactions between mo ther andinfant' (Malloch, 1999, p. 31) where human communication between mo ther and infant inthe first year of life takes the form of an interactive dialogue shaped by the musical elementsof pulse, quality, and narrative.

All of these accounts of the origins of the aesthetic emphasize the role of the infant asactive agent rather than passive subject in the aesthetic transaction, and acknowledge thataesthetic response occurs as music-maker as well as music-listener. Others suppo rt thisview of the child as active 'aesthetic' agent arguing that young children '. . . are culture­makers by nature . . . they are born into history and community' (Abbs,2003, p. 55) and areengaged in a 'reciprocal relation ship' between culture and self. Studies in the sociology ofchildhood assert that children '. . . are active cont ributors to, rather than simply spectatorsof the complex processes of cultural continuity and change' (James et al., 1998, p. 83).This is illustrated in studies of young children's meaning-making as song-makers (Barrett,2000, 2003b) where young children are portrayed as active producers rather than simplyre-producers of their musical culture. in sho rt, that they work as 'meme engineers' (Barrett,2003b ) in the ways in which they const ruct musical mean ing in and through their lives.Impor tantly, th is early 'aesthetic work' plays a role in the ways in which young childrencome to understand themselves and others.

Richard Shusterman's (2002, 2004) concept of 'somaesthetics' constitutes one approachto a view of the aesthetic that embraces the sensual and the cognitive. the body and themind . He defines somaesthetics as '. . . a disciplin e devoted to the critical amelio rative studyof the experience and use of the body as a locus of senso ry-aesthetic appreciation ( aesthesis)and creative self-fashioning' (2004, p. 51), and suggests that this study addresses the centralaims of philosophy, those of 'knowledge, self-knowledge, right action, justice, and the questfor the good life' (2004, p. 51). Shusterman outlines th ree forms of somaesthetics, analytic,pragmatic, and practical.While all three hold potential for developing our unde rstanding of

186 T H E C H ILD AS M US ICIA N

the development o f aesthetic response in music, it is the latte r, the practical , or experient ial,that is my focus. For Shuste rma n, experien tial somaesthetics' role is to inform us more fullyabout o ur feelings and emotions thro ugh atten tion to the embodime nt of these. Knowledgeof other courses of action and ways of being helps us ' retrain , reorganise and re-ed ucate'(2004, pp. 56-58). Such awareness can lead us to better knowledge, understanding, andult imately actio n in the ways in which we con duct our lives, issues that are closely linkedto the developme nt and maintenance of iden tity. Pot ent ially, adm ission of somaestheticsmay assist our understanding of the ways in which individ uals draw on and enact mu sicpractices. It is worth noting th at the m usic ed ucation system deve loped by Emile JaquesDalcro ze (192111980) holds as an un de rlying principle that m usical understanding arisesfrom developin g awareness of kinaesthetic respo nse to music and th e subsequent conscioususe of bodily movement as a mean s to explo re m usic's structural and expressive properties.While Dalcroze's chief con cern was the development of m usical un derstand ing in thoughtand action rather th an self-knowledge and identity wor k, his phil osophy and methodsforeshadowed in man y ways those of pract ical somaesthetics,

Thre e key elements emerge from the literature exam ined above: first , that the aestheticis embodied. connecting the body and the mind in children's m usical th ought and action;secon d, tha t the 'ch ild as musi cian' is engaged from infancy as 'aesthetic agent'; and, th ird,that children's 'aesthetic work' provides a means for them to 'perform' identity as th ey cometo unde rstand themselves and their worlds. In proposing a performative view of aesthe ticidentity, I seek to bring these th ree key elements together to promote a view of the child asaesthetic agent, engaged through mind and bo dy in crucial identity work in and throughmusic. Tha t mu sic is cent ral to iden tity work is in disputable. Drawing on Judith Butler 'sperformative accou nt of identity, Bowman (2002) sets fort h as a 'pivotal claim' for mu sic'sethical and education al sign ificance the view that:

.. weare what wedo, and do repeatedly. Music's ritualistic actions and the dispositions thatundergird them are fundamental to the formation of character, both collective andindividual. More strongly still,music plays a fundamental role in the socialproduction andregulation of identity. If music is an important part of the machinery by which people'sindividual and collective identities are constructed, reconstructed, maintained, andregulated, music education becomes something dramatically more momentous andproblematic than an act of overseeing the development of musical skills, musicianship, or'aesthetic sensibilities'. The view on which this claim is based is performative, one that seesidentities not as natural facts, but cultural performances. (pp. 75-76)

I have quo ted Bowman 's claim in full as it holds sign ificance for any d iscussion o f children'sm usical developm ent , and of the 'aesthetic'. If we endorse Bowman's centra l claim, thatmu sic is foun da tional in the constru ction, reconstruction, maintenance, and regulat ion ofidentity, the develo pment of the 'ch ild as m usician' becomes a process ofself-creation' thatis concerned not just with the 'sonoro us event' but also with the rich interplay of individ ual,social, cu ltural, and environmental factors that are par t of that event, and the changes andtran sformations effected in the individual through engagement with all these facto rs.

In th is view the development of aesthetic u nderstand ing as evidenced in aestheticresponse is a process o f growt h, not of acquisition, '...mo re a process of "beco ming" thana process of becoming aware or of "Becom ing knowledgeable" (Bowman, 2004, p. 44).

AE ST H ETIC RESPONSE 187

Significantly, developing aesthetic understanding and response is not the sale preserve ofthe listening subject: the possibility of aesthetic response is present in aU modes of musicengagement as children construct and 'perform' their emergent aesthetic identities.

References

Abbs, P. (2003). Against the flow:Education, the artsand poumodem culture. London: Rcutledgef'almer.

Barrett, M. S. (l996). Children's aesthetic decision -m aking: An an alysis of chi ld ren 's mu sical discourse as

composers. International Journal of MIl5ic Education. 28, 37....fJ2.

Barrett , M . S. (1998). Child ren composing: A view of aesthetic decision-ma king. In B. Sundin. G. E.

McPherson, & G. Folkestad (eds}, Children composing (pp. 57-81) Malmo: Lund Un iversity Press.

Barrett , M. S. (2000/2 00 1). Percept ion, description and reflection: Young children's aesthet ic decision ­

making as critics of their own and ad ult compos itions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in MusicEducation. 147, 22-29

Barr ett . M. S. (200 2). Towards a 'situated ' view of the aesthetic in mu sic ed uca tion. foumal of AestheticEducation. 36 (3), 67- 77.

Barrett. M. S. (2003a) . Freedoms and constrain ts: Const ructing mu sical worlds th rough th e dialogue of

compos itio n. In M. Hickey (ed .) , Composition in theschools:A new horizon formusiceducation (pp. 3-27).

Reston. VA: MENC.

Barrett. :\1. S. (2003b). Meme eng inee rs: Child ren as producers o f musical culture. International Icurnat ofEarly Years Education, 11(3) 195--212.

Berlyne,D. E. (1970) . Novelty. complexity, and hedo nic value. Perception and psychophysics, 8. 279- 286.

Berlyne, D. E. ( 1971). Aestheticsand psychobiology. New York: Appleton Cent ury Cro fts Pub lishers.

Berlyne, D. E. (1974 ). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps towards an objective psychology ofaesthetic appreciation. Toron to: John Wiley.

Blacking, J. ( 1973/2000 ). How musical is man?Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Boal-Palhe iros, G. & Hargreaves, D. J. (2001). Listening to music at ho me and at school. British Journal ofMusicEducation, 18(2), 103-11 8.

Boal-Palheiros, G. & Hargreaves, D. J. (2004 ). Child ren's mod es of listening to music at home and at school.

In 1.Tafuri (ed.], Proceedings of the zo« seminarof rheISME Research Commission(pp. 31- 38). Bologna:

Co nservato ric di Musica.

Bowman, W. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music.New York: Ox ford University Press.

Bowm an, W. (2002). Educating musically. In R. Colwell & C.Richardson (eds), The newhandbook of researchon music teachingand learning (pp. 63-84). New York: O xford University Press.

Bowman, W. (2004 ). Co gnition and th e body: Perspectives from music education . In 1. Bresler (ed .),

Knowing bodies, moving minds: Toward embodied music teaching and learning (pp. 29---50). Do rd recht:

Kluwe r Academic Publ ishers.

Bresler, L (2004). Knowing bodies, moving minds: Toward embodied music teachingand learning. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Acade mic Pub lishers.

Bryson. B. (1997) . 'Anythingbut heavy metal' :Symbolic exclus ion and m usical dislikes . AmericanSociologicalreview,61, 884-899.

Bullough, E. (19 ]2) . ' Psychical d istance' as a facto r in art and as an aesthet ic princip le. British journal ofPsychology, 5,87- 98.

Byrn es. S. R. ( 1997). Different-age a nd me ntally handicapped listeners' response to Western ar t music

selections. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 45(4), 568-579.

188 TH E C H ILD AS M USI CIAN

Campbell, P. S. (1998). Songs in their heads: music and its meaning in children's lives. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Campbell, P.S. (2002). Th e musical cult ures of ch ildren . In L Bresler & C. Marme Thompson (eds) , The artsin children'sliws: Context. culture,and curriculum (pp. 57-69). Dc rdrecht: Kluwer Acade mic Publishers.

Dalcroz e, E. J. ( 1921/1980 ). Rhythm, musicand education. London: Th e Dalcroze Society.

Dam asio, A. (1994/ 2000). Descartes' error: Emotion; reason and the human brain. New York: Quill (HarperCo llins).

Damasio, A. (2000) . The[eelingof what happens: Body, emotion and the making of consciousness. London:

Vintage.

Damasio, A. (2003). Lookingfor Spinoza:Joy, sorrow, and the feelingbrain. New York: Harcourt .

DeN ora, T. (2000) . Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Camb ridge University Press.

DeNora, T. (2001). Aesthetic agen cy and musical practice: New d irections in the sociology of mu sic andemo tion . In P. N. Iuslln & J. A. Slobod a (eds), Music and emotion.' Theory and research (pp. 16 1- 180).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DeNora , T. (2003). After Adorno: Rethinking musicsociology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press.

Dissanayake, E. (1988/ 2002). What isart for?Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Dissanayake, E. (l 992J1999 ). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. Seattle: Un iversity of

Washi ngton Press.

Dissanayeke, E. {2000}. Art and intimacy: How the arts began. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Dissan ayake, E. (2001). Becomin g homo aeuheticus: sources of aesthetic imagination in mother- infant

interactions. SubStance, 94/ 95, 85-103.

Elliott, D. J. (2002). Philosophical perspe ctives on research . In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds ), The newhandbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 85-102). New York: Oxfo rd Univer sity Press.

Farn sworth, p, R. (l9S41. A study of the Hevn er adjec tive list. Journal of Aestlu,tics and Art Criticism, 13,97-103.

Fechner, G. (1878/ 1978 ). Diejorschulederaesthetik: (Theintroduction toaesthetics). Hildesheim: Geor Holms.

Flowers, P. (1984) . Attention to element s of music and effect of instruction in vocabulary on written

descriptions of mu sic by children and undergraduates. Psychology of Music, 12, 17- 24.

R owers. P. ( 1988). Th e effects of teaching and learn ing experiences, tempo, and mode on undergrad uates'and children's symphonic mu sic preferences. journal of Research in Music Education, 36,19-34.

Flowers, P. ( l990). l istening: Th e key to describ ing music. MusicBdvcators JOllrna~ 77, 21-23.

Frith, S. & McRobbie, A. (1990). Rock and sexuality. In S. Frith & A. Goo dwin (eds), Pop, Rock and thewritten word (pp. 371- 389). l ondon: Routledge.

Fung. V. & Gromko, J. (200 1). Effects of active versus pas sive listening on th e qu ality of childr en's inventednot ation s and preferences for two Korean pieces. Psychology of Music.29(2), 128-138.

Gadam er, H .~G. ( 1982). Truth and method. New York: Cros sroads Press.

Gallie, W. B. (1964). Philosophy and the historical understanding, (2nd edn ). New York: Schocken Books.

Ga mmon. V. ( 1996 ). Wh at's wrong with school m usic?A respo nse to Malcolm Ross. BritishJournal of MusicEducation. B, 101- 122.

Gregory, A. H . (1997). The roles of music in society: th e ethno musicological perspective. In D. J. Hargreaves

& A. C. No rth (eds), The social psychology of music (pp. 123-140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Alde rshott: Ashgate

Publishing.

AESTHETIC RESPONSE 189

Gromko, J. & Poorman,A. S. (1998). Does perceptual-motor performance enhance perception of patternedart music? Musicae Scientiae: The Journal of the European Societyfor Cognitive Sciences of Music, 2(2),157-170.

Gromko.I. & Russell, C. (2002). Relationships among young children's aural perception, listening condition,

and accurate reading of graphic listening maps. Journalof Research in MusicEducation, 50(4), 333-342.

Hair, H. (1981). Verbal identification of musical concepts. Journal of Research in MusicEducation, 29, 11-21.

Hair, H. (1987). Descriptive vocabulary and visual choices: Children's responses to conceptual changes inmusic. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in MusicEducation, 91,59-64.

Hair, H. I. (1993/1994). Children's descriptions and representations of music. Bulletin of the CouncilforResearch in MusicEducation, 119,41--48.

Hanslick, E. (1986). On the musicallybeautiful: A contribution towardsthe revision of the aesthetic of music.(trans. G. Payzant from the 8th edn, 1891). Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.

Hevner, K. (1936). Experimental studies of the elements of expression in music. American Journal ofPsychology. XLV, 111, 245-268.

James, A., Jenks, c.,& Prout,A. (1998). Theorizingchildhood. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kant, I. (1952). The critiqueofjudgement. (trans. J. C. Meredith) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Karmiloff, K. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (200l). Pathways to language: Fromfetus to adolescent. Cambridge,

MA.: Harvard University Press.

Krumhansl, C. 1. & Iuscyk, P. W. (1990). Infants' perception of phrase structure in music. PsychologicalScience, 1, 70 - 73.

Lakoff G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to westernthought.New York: Basic Books.

Langer, S. (1942/1979). Philosophy in a new key:a study in the symbolismof reason, rite,and art. (Brd edn).

Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Lychner,J. A. (1998). An empirical study concerning terminology relating to aesthetic response to music.Journal of Research in MusicEducation, 46(2) 303-319.

Lynch, M. P. & Eilers. R. E. (1991). Children's perception of native and nonnative music scales. MusicPerception, 9,121-132.

Madsen, C. K., Brittin, R. V.,& Capparella-Sheldon, D. A. (1993). An empirical investigation of the aesthetic

response to music. Journalof Research in MusicEducation, 41, 57-69.

Madsen, C. K., Byrnes, S. R., Capparella-Sheldon, D. A.• & Brittin, R. V. (1993). Aesthetic responses to

music: Musicians versus non-musicians. Journalof Music Therapy, 30( 3), 174-191.

Madsen, C. K. & Geringer, J. M. (1990). Differential patterns of music listening: Focus of attention ofmusician s versus non-musicians. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in MusicEducation, 105,45--47.

Malloch, S. (1999). Mothers and infants and communicative musicality. Musicae Scientiae. Special Issue.29-57.

Marsh, K. (1995). Children's singing games: Composition in the playground? Research Studies in MusicEducation, 4. 2-11.

McClary. S. (1991). Feminine endings: Music, gender and sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

McRobbie,A. (2000). Feminismand youth culture, (2nd edn). Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan.

Meyer, 1. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Meyer, L. B. (2001). Music and emotion: Distinctions and uncertainties. In P. N. Iuslin & J. A. Sloboda (eds),Musicand emotion: Theoryand research (pp. 341-360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

190 THE CHILD AS MUSICIAN

Nelson, D. J. (1985). Trends in the aesthetic responses of children to the musical experience. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 33(3) 193-203.

NettI, B. (1990). Folk and traditional music of the western continent (Srd edn), Englewood Cliffs, NT:Prentice-Hall.

North,A. c.,Hargreaves, D. J., & O'Neill, S. (2000). The importance of music to adolescents. BritishJournalof Educational Psychology, 70, 255-272.

Preston, H. (ed.), (1994). Listening. appraising, and composing: Case studies in music. British Journal ofMusic Education. 11(2). 15-55.

Richards, C. (1998). Teen spirits: Musicand identity in media education. London: UCL Press.

Richardson, C. P.(1995). The musical listening processes ofthe child: An international perspective. In H. Lee,& M. Barrett (eds), Honing the craft: Improving the quality of music education (pp. 212-219). Hobart:Artemis Publishing Consultants.

Rodriguez, C. X. (1998). Children's perception, production and description of musical expression. Journalof Research in Music Education. 46. 48-61

Rodriguez, C. X. & Webster, P.R. (1997). Development of children's verbal interpretative responses to musiclistening. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in MusicEducation, 134,9-30.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The culturalnature of human development. New York:Oxford University Press.

Ross, M. (1995). What's wrong with school music? BritishJournalof Music Education, 12(3), 185-201.

Russell, P.A. (1997). Musical tastes and society. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds}, The social psychologyof music (pp. 141-158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schellenberg, E. G. & Trehub, S. E. (1996). Natural intervals in music: a perspective from infant listeners.Psychological Science, 7, 272-277.

Schellenberg, E. G. & Trehub, S. E. (1999). Culture-general and culture specific factors in the discriminationof melodies. Journalof ExperimentalChild Psychology, 74,107-127.

Schopenhauer, A. (1818/1966). The world as will and representation (vols. I & II). E. F. J. Payne (trans.)New York:Dover publications.

Shepherd, J.& Giles-Davies, J. (1991). Music, text and subjectivity. In J. Shepherd (ed.), Musicas social text(pp. 174-187). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Shusterman, R. (2000). Performinglive: Aestheticalternatives for theendsofart. Ithaca, NY:Cornell UniversityPress.

Shusterman, R. (2004). Somaesthetics and education: Exploring the terrain. In 1. Bresler (ed.), Knowingbodies. moving minds: Toward embodied music teaching and learning (pp. 51-60). Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Suthers.L. (1999). 'I sang games': An investigation of the labels used by young children to describe musicexperiences. In M. S. Barrett, G. E. McPherson, & R. Smith (eds}, Children and music: Developmentalperspectives (pp. 306-310). Launceston, Tasmania: Uniprint.

Swanwick, K. & Franca, C. C. (1999). Composing. performing and audience-listening as indicators ofmusical understanding. BritishJournal of MusicEducation, 16, 5-19.

Thompson, W. E & Schellenberg. E. G. (2002). Cognitive constraints on music listening. In R. Colwell & C.

Richardson (eds), The new handbookof research on music teaching and learning(pp. 461-485). New York:Oxford University Press.

Trainor.L, E, Tsang, C. D., & Cheung, V. H. W. (2002). Preference for musical consonance in 2-month-oldinfants. MusicPerception, 20, 185-192.

Trainor, 1. F. & Schmidt, 1. A. (2003). Processing emotions induced by music. In I. Peretz & R. Zatorre(eds), The cognitive neuroscience of music (pp. 310-324). New York:Oxford University Press.

AESTHETIC RESPONSE 191

Trehub, S. E., Schellenberg, E. G., & Hill, D. S. (1997). The origins of music perception and cognition.A developmental perspective. In 1. Delige & J. Sloboda (eds), Perception and cognition of music (pp.103-128). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundation of human intersubjectivity. In S. Braten (ed.), Inter­subjective communication and emotion in earlyontogeny(pp. 15-46). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Willis,P. (1978). Profane culture. London: Routledge.

Zenter, M. R. & Kagan, J. (1996). Perception of music by infants. Nature, 383, 29.

Zilman, D. & Gan, S.-L. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (eds}, Thesocial psychology of music (pp.161-187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.